Stillington Surgery

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care. Data from the latest National GP Patient survey showed that the practice had achieved 97% which was above local and national averages, for how involved patients were in decisions about their care and treatment.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, they had worked hard to target patients that were overdue cervical cancer screening to find out what barriers were stopping them from receiving the screening. There were established mechanisms for engaging with community healthcare providers such as health visitors, to share pertinent information about children and families.

The practice offered a range of enhanced services, for example phlebotomy and joint injections with the aim of reducing extensive travel for its patients.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

Latest results from the National GP Patient survey showed that 98% of patients knew what the next step would be after contacting their GP practice. This was above the local and national average of 83%.

The practice supported an annual Community Health Day which strengthened opportunities for providing health and wellbeing information to patients.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.

The practice aimed to acknowledged complaints within 3 working days, followed by a thorough investigation. A review of complaints showed that complainants were acknowledged in a timely manner, and a thorough investigation was carried out. Outcomes were communicated to the complainant. If complainants were not satisfied with the response, they were signposted to the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman and other advocacy services.

The practice was fully involved with its patient participation group and actioned many of their suggestions for improvement.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The practice was open Monday to Friday from 0800 – 1830 and offered a variety of appointments including face-to-face, telephone, video consultations and home visits. Appointments were always available on the day. Around 200 people contacted CQC directly to give feedback on their care at Stillington Surgery (in the days before and during our assessment) and all were exceptionally positive about access to the service.

A review of the practice’s appointment system showed that patients were able to easily submit requests online. All requests were triaged by a GP the same day. If a patient had any “red flag” symptoms they were instructed to contact 999. However, for those patients that were not able to do this, reception staff were able to offer an appointment over the phone, or patients could visit the practice to arrange.

The latest results from the National GP Patient survey showed that the practice had achieved above local and national averages for how easy it was to contact the practice by phone (99% compared to the local average of 50% and national average of 53%). Similarly, 77% of patients found Stillington Surgery’s website easy to use, compared with national and local averages of 51%.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. Feedback received directly by CQC showed that patients were positive about how staff treated them, with several praising staff attitudes as kind and caring.

We observed staff treat people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers.

Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary.